Carruth v. State, 28939
| Decision Date | 03 September 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 28939,28939 |
| Citation | 208 S.E.2d 464,232 Ga. 644 |
| Parties | Roger CARRUTH v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Louise T. Hornsby, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Joseph J. Drolet, Asst. Dist. Atty., Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., B. Dean Grindle, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Appellant was convicted in Fulton Superior Court of armed robbery and received a sentence of 12 years to be served in the State Penitentiary. His motion for a new trial was overruled by the trial court. The enumeration of errors in this appeal complains the trial court erred in a overruling the motion for new trial on the three general grounds and because 'the trial court erred in allowing illegal admission of evidence in the pre-sentence hearing' in violation of Georgia law.
The conviction and sentence in this case will be affirmed. The trial court heard this case by consent of the parties without the intervention of a jury. A review of the evidence presented at the trial discloses the trial court was authorized to find appellant guilty of the offense charged of armed robbery. The victim of the robbery identified appellant as one of the two perpetrators of the crime. While appellant denied participation in the robbery, he admitted being present at the scene of the crime. The credibility of the witnesses was addressed to the trial court, as the trior of facts, and the victim's testimony, together with the other evidence considered at the trial, authorized the trial court to find appellant guilty. See Hogan v. State, 221 Ga. 9(2), 142 S.E.2d 778.
Counsel for defendant also argues on appeal that it was error for the trial court to overrule the motion for new trial because of the illegal admission of evidence in the pre-sentence hearing before the trial court. This argument must fail for two reasons: first, this point was not raised in the motion for new trial in the trial court and, therefore, would not be a valid reason for concluding on appeal that the trial court erred in denying the motion for new trial; and, second, even if we treated the evidentiary ruling complained of as a separate enumeration of error, the record reveals an insufficient objection to the admission of the evidence at the trial. A contemporaneous objection to a ruling in the trial court is necessary to preserve the question for review on appeal. See Mallory v. State, 230 Ga. 657, 658, 198 S.E.2d 677.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knight v. State
...of a witness is a matter which is left to the jury to resolve. Rini v. State, 236 Ga. 715, 225 S.E.2d 234 (1976); Carruth v. State, 232 Ga. 644, 208 S.E.2d 464 (1974). The witness Taylor's identification of the appellants as two of the robbers provided direct evidence of their guilt, which ......
-
Bethsaida Development, Inc. v. Charter Land & Housing Corp.
... ... 643] incorrectly stated the date of the judgment, is denied. Harrison v. State, 120 Ga.App. 812, 172 S.E.2d 328. See Housing Authority of City of Douglas v. Marbut Co., 229 Ga ... ...
-
Phillips v. State, 30936
... ... See Kendricks v. State, 231 Ga. 670, 203 S.E.2d 859 (1974); Carruth v. State, 232 Ga. 644, 208 S.E.2d 464 (1974), and Herring v. State, 232 Ga. 683, 208 S.E.2d 490 (1974) ... Appellant also contends ... ...
-
Murray v. State, s. 30961
... ... Burke v. State, 234 Ga. 512, 216 S.E.2d 812 (1975); Carruth v. State, 232 Ga. 644, 208 S.E.2d 464 (1974) ... 2. The defendants contend that they were denied equal protection of the laws ... ...